Allow me to explain that I am not a Christian, nor is there any sense in which I would disagree with your concerns (Chris and other people who fear the evils of unexamined and stubborn belief in systems that have already been shown to be at least somewhat inaccurate in the literal sense that they are being taken popularly and used in the service of oppression). I do think that there is some unexamined framing of the debate going on in this string, however, which is then denied by the "rational" participants framing it when they are confronted by the less literal, more symbolic and intuitive thinkers. This is not fair either, and I don't think it serves to "educate" or change what is really damaging in the social climate. I want to go get a couple of quotes and paste them to show what I mean.
This is the passage I was referring to by DWill. I don't see the operative word "might" in it and I don't see "seemingly" near "impossible." Yet the following is what you said about my take on the above:If a person believes something that has been proven to be impossible, such as the virgin birth, that belief corrupts their entire capacity to think critically, undermining their ability to base their opinions upon evidence.
You may be talking about another post I didn't see, but it looks as if you would really like to change what you said without admitting it's a change. Isn't it okay to admit something is a little less absolute that what a person first said here? I admit that I didn't mean what it sounded like I meant. And I admit that's what I made it sound like; you didn't misread. I mis-spoke. I took too aggressive a postion for what I believe because I overreact when I think people are being unfair to others, whether I agree with the latter or not.GentleReader9 wrote:
... but hardly a basis to discount the whole of what someone says because we dislike their particular flavor of irrationality.
Now that's pithy. I could have used that a few minutes ago. In my post I said that belief in a seemingly impossible event, such as the ressurection, might incline someone to be less rational acrosss the board. The operative word was "might', but perhaps even that was giving too much credence to that idea of contamination. I will continue to think about it.
DWill
I also think the problem with the "evils of organized religion" are not due at all to the belief in something mystical, spiritual, wonderful outside of and beyond our understanding. People who really believe in a Greater Power than themselves without imaginging they know what it is and look with an open and sincere heart for it are generally kind to others and slow to judge or hurt them. Like Jesus or Buddha. The trouble is with people who are being insincere in their manipulation of power at other people's expense and this can be done even by atheists. Just look at the totalitarian Communist government of Stalin. It's another example of the manipulative use of an idea which when sincerely used to try to be fair and rectify previous evils in the world could look differently. It's the spirit in which we interact that matters. Not the fact that we believe when we reach the end of what we know. Everyone does this and it's impossible not to. It is possible not to wish other people ill or try to succeed at their expense or undervalue their worth.
and my promise to read more carefully and less paranoid-ly in future. 
(I wish there was a devil with a nicer smile to choose from. I always cause trouble in the very sweetest way I can.)
